Custom Search

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Saint Paul RICO/ Would you like to meet one of the RICOMEN?

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the introduction.

23 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

I introduce to you JEFF KUBITSCHEK!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
City of St. Paul, et aI.,
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et aI.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SSe
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
AFFIDAVIT OF
JEFF KUBITSCHEK
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Jeff Kubitschek, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
EXHIBIT 78
1. I am a resident of White Bear Township, Minnesota, and have resided there for
7 years. I am married and have 3 children and 3 step-children.
2. I was born in Saint Paul and raised White Bear Lake, Minnesota and graduated
from White Bear Lake High School in 1984. My wife Sara Kubitschek and I
started in the business of providing rental housing in the City of S1. Paul in
1999.
3. I have worked at Seven Comers hardware store in St. Paul for over 17 years.
Working in S1. Paul and as a rental property owner in S1. Paul, I would drive
by our rental properties on almost a daily basis. I would visit and provide
service at one ofthe properties at least two times per week.
4. Our single family and duplex rental homes were located in neighborhoods in
where based upon Iny personal observations over many years, there has been a
large concentration of older housing stock. See Exhibit No.1 attached hereto,
Exhibit C to Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories, which is a list of the rental
properties I owned during 2002 through 2006 by property address; Exhibit No.
2 attached hereto, a list of my properties including year built and census tract;
and Exhibit No.3 attached hereto, a map showing the location of each of my
rental properties during 2002 through 2006.
5. We were owners of four (4) rental properties within the City of S1. Paul,
including properties located at 1086 Minnehaha East, 883/885 Sims, 668 York,
and 748/750 Desoto. Seven (7) of the eight (8) tenants received Section 8
assistance or other assistance. All eight (8) of our tenants were members of a
2
EXHIBIT 78
protected class. In each of our rental properties that housed Section 8 tenants,
we passed the PHA inspection before being approved for receipt of Section 8
rent subsidies.
6. The tenant market for our residential rental properties would be considered
Class C - properties that have minimal amenities for low income individuals,
but are safe and decent affordable housing. Our rents were below market as I
focused on providing housing primarily to low-income.
7. Our rental homes were in the neighborhoods of the City where based upon my
personal observations, there is and has been a heavy concentration of
minorities since I began providing low-income individuals and families with
housing. See Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 attached hereto, described above; and also
Exhibit No. 3 attached hereto, a map showing the location of these properties
and the respective percentage of minority population throughout S1. Paul's
census tracts.
8. Since starting our rental business in 1999, I have worked on a daily basis in the
City of S1. Paul. During that same period, many days I would spend many
hours at my rental properties looking for exterior issues like trash and graffiti,
etc., and working on my properties. I also responded to my tenants' requests
for repairs or other assistance, meeting with potential renters and at times
meeting with, talking with neighbors, meeting with City inspectors, obtaining
permits from City Hall, dealing with contractors on improvement or repair
3
EXHIBIT 78
Issues, traveling between my rental homes, and to and from hardware and
horne improvement stores.
9. My wife and I attempted to screen tenants and deal with behavior issues
without having city provided resources. During the time we owned rental
properties, the City demanded that we and other landlords screen potential
tenants more effectively.
10. Many of my former tenants were good tenants and did not cause complaints
from neighbors or others. I believe in giving everyone a fair opportunity to
live in the City. As long as my tenants met their obligations to me under the
lease and did not cause problems, they could continue to live in my properties.
11. If one of my tenants became a problem, once I was notified of the problem, I
would work to resolve the issue including working with the City police
department to address claimed criminal behavior.
12. Starting in 2002, we experienced increased code enforcement activity on our
rental portfolio, which included exterior and interior inspections, city orders,
shortening of timelines for fixing any claimed deficiency, charging of fees for
excessive use of city services when deficiencies should have been called all at
once, interference with our ability to comply by delayed notices so that we
couldn't get orders remedied, and sending mailings to the wrong or old
addresses.
13. Between 2002 and 2005, the City claimed it was applying its higher standard
consistently across the City. During this period, the City code inspectors under
4
EXHIBIT 78
Dawkins conducted code sweeps in the neighborhoods of our low-incoine
rental properties. In order to ensure that we were not in violation of the higher
standards, I had to take significant efforts to increase the monitoring and
maintenance of our properties.
14. Starting in the fall of 2002 and continuing through 2005, the City's increased
code enforcement activity directed at our rental portfolio interfered with my
ability to attend to my rental business and prohibited me from working to
prepare unoccupied rental homes for re-rental, to communicate with the many
individuals who were seeking housing, and to monitor Iny other rental
properties.
15. Prior to the late fall of 2002, I had always been responsive to City inspections
and repair orders on my rental properties and my relationship with inspectors
had been good.
16. Before I realized the city implemented a heavy handed code enforcement
policy and shortened the timelines for addressing issues - I attempted to
respond to orders and address issues - this increased burden took a substantial
amount of time. Instead of getting rental properties ready for turnover, we
were forced to spend more time addressing targeting by the City for heightened
standard orders - which allowed less time turning over units or other tenant
issues. In an effort to meet the city's elevated standard, I made more visits to
our properties to check and confinn the allegations of the code enforcement
officers and to take care of the issues cited in the orders. The more orders we
5
EXHIBIT 78
received, the more time intensive it became. It became clear that the increase
in orders from the City would mean more time and funding required attending
to those orders, attending administrative hearings, and City induced court
actions.
17. Search warrants were executed at 883/885 Sims on January 20, 2005, when a
law enforcement raid was made on both properties. Both 883 and 885 Sims
were occupied by protected class melnbers receiving Section 8 or other
assistance. Law enforcement officers broke down the doors of both Sims
properties and proceeded with their search; City police trashed the inside of
both properties and inspectors contemporaneously condemned the property.
18. After the raid, Dawkins, through FORCE code enforcement officer Lippert,
sent a Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated January 21, 2005.
See Exhibit No.4.
19. The January 21, 2005, Notice of Condemnation stated that the principal
violations were general filthy conditions and infestation of cockroaches. On
January 24, 2005, we hired "Be There Pest Control" to exterminate any
cockroaches in the building. We removed the principal violations noted in the
Notice of Condemnation, which states "Authorization to reoccupy this/these
dwelling units(s) will not be given until it is demonstrated that all principal
violations have been corrected..."
20. On January 25, 2005, my wife Sara faxed a letter to Dawkins along with the
exterminator invoice as well and requested cooperation as one of the tenants
6
EXHIBIT 78
not present at the police raid was cleaning her unit and wanted to occupy her
home again. See Exhibit No.5.
21. We were not allowed to reoccupy the property without a code compliance,
because FORCE inspector Lippert immediately referred the property to the
City's Vacant Building department on January 20, 2005. See Exhibit No.6.
22. On January 26, 2005, after we had removed the principal violations listed in
the Notice of Condemnation, and after faxing a letter and pest control receipt to
Dawkins, Magner sent us a Vacant Building Registration Notice stating that
the premises at 883 Sims had been inspected and found to meet the definition
of a Vacant Building as described in the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter
43, and informing us that they were required to pay a $250.00 vacant building
registration fee and that the enforcement officer might declare the building to
constitute a nuisance building subject to demolition. See Exhibit No.7.
23. We proceeded to pay the $250.00 fee and James Seeger from the City's LIEP
office inspected 883-885 Sims on February 25, 2005, and sent us his three page
code compliance list. See Exhibit No.8.
24.For ten months we were involved with contractors spending time, money and
effort in order to satisfy the City and get a certificate of code compliance. We
lost rental income from our tenants and were unable to afford to pay for the full
"code compliance" Defendants wrongfully demanded in order to again rent our
duplex. See Exhibit No.9. Because of the large expenditures required to
comply with the code compliance on the Sims property, we eventually had to
7
EXHIBIT 78
sell a duplex rental property located at 1086 Minnehaha, which was rented to
members of a protected class receiving Section 8 assistance, because we could
not make the payments without the rental income. We also expended
thousands of dollars in order to meet the code compliance demands of
Defendants, and lost our business expectancy, including profits and now
attorney's fees.
25. On March 9, 2005, an inspection was conducted by Kelley Booker and a
Correction Notice issued for 748 Desoto due to storm doors in disrepair,
windows and/or door screens in disrepair, and windows and/or storm windows
in a state of disrepair. Both 748 and 750 Desoto were occupied by protected
class members receiving Section 8 or other assistance.
26. The City had labeled this property as a "problem property," with a desire to
remove the "problem tenant" due to "police and code issues at the property."
See Exhibit No. 10.
27. On August 3, 2005, Dawkins sent a Notice of the City's intent to revoke the
rental registration certificate for 748 Desoto, stating that he had determined
that the use and occupancy of the premises at 748 Desoto constituted a
nuisance under Chapter 51 of the legislative code because police officers had
been called to a loud party, because of cOlnplaining neighbors, and because of
code violations such as rotting and broken window sills, screens cut around
window air conditioners, gutters plugged with leaves, and a broken screen door
or no screen. Dawkins further stated that he recommended that the City
8
EXHIBIT 78
Council revoke the rental registration certificate, and if revoked, occupancy
would not be allowed until an inspection was conducted by his department
(NHPI) and the property was in compliance. Dawkins requested a call from us
as soon as possible to set up a meeting to discuss how to correct this situation
before the City Council revoked the certificate. See Exhibit No. 11.
28. We contacted Dawkins pursuant to his letter and Dawkins told us that we
needed to find new tenants. At Dawkins request and in the hopes of saving our
rental registration certificate, we served a notice of lease termination on one
tenant, and begged Dawkins to allow us to keep an existing tenant.
29.At Dawkins request, we signed a Certification of Rental Registration NonRevocation
Agreement, whereby we agreed with Dawkins to evict a tenant by
voluntary Notice to Quit or Unlawful Detainer. See Exhibit No. 12.
30. When I met personally with Dawkins to sign the Certification of Rental
Registration Non-Revocation Agreement to remove our tenants in both 748
Desoto and 668 York, Dawkins told me, as he patted me on the back, that "If
we had more landlords like you in this city, we could clean this place up."
31.In January of 2006, we received a Landlord Verification Form from PHA
requesting information to determine eligibility for public housing for the very
same tenant that Dawkins forced us to remove under threat of revoking our
rental registration. Our report to the PHA on the tenant we were forced to
remove was very positive - rent was always paid on time, she was a pleasant
and cooperative person, and we would re-adlnit her. See Exhibit No. 13.
9
EXHIBIT 78
32. We have suffered damages and lost rental income, lost business expectancy,
including profits and now attorney's fees, as a direct result of Defendants'
conduct.
33. In July of 2007, Defendant Schiller issued a Work Order to remove trash from
the yard and alley at the DeSoto property, as well as from "inside of the metal
shed." Again in January of 2008, Schiller issued a work order to remove trash
froln ~~inside of the garage." The City removed some of our personal items
from inside of our shed. See Exhibit No. 14.
34. In January of 2008, 748 DeSoto was designated a Vacant Building, again with
a code compliance requirement. See Exhibit No. 15.
35. On May 11, 2004, an inspection was conducted by Kelly Booker and a
Correction Notice issued for 668 York due to unpainted wood trim around
windows and a mattress in the alley behind the property. We had installed a
new window and were in the process of adding the trim and paint around the
new window. See Exhibit No. 16. Both units at 668 York were occupied by
protected class members receiving Section 8 or other assistance.
36. On May 20, 2004, another inspection was conducted by Kelly Booker and a
Correction Notice issued for 668 York due to a mattress in the back yard off
the alley. We also received an excessive consumption notice and $50.00 fine
from Dawkins for the cost ofthe re-inspection. See Exhibit No. 17.
10
EXHIBIT 78
37. The City had labeled this property as a "problem property," with a desire to
remove the "problem tenant" due to "police issues at the property." See
Exhibit No. 18.
38. On July 28, 2005, we received from Dawkins a Notice of the City's intent to
revoke the rental registration certificate for 668 York, stating that he had
determined that the use and occupancy of the premises at 668 York constitutes
a nuisance under Chapter 51 of the legislative code because of numerous police
calls and because police officers had been called to the premises after the son
of the tenant had a dispute with his brother and shot and wounded him in the
back. According to Dawkins letter, the son of the tenant was charged with
"possession of a firearm by an ineligible." Dawkins further stated that he
recommended to the City Council that they revoke the rental registration
certificate, and if revoked, occupancy is not allowed until an inspection is done
by his department (NHPI) and he has determined the property to be in
compliance with city code and no longer a nuisance. Dawkins ended his letter
requesting a call as soon as possible to set up a meeting to discuss how to
correct this situation before City Council revoked the certificate. See Exhibit
No. 19.
39. We contacted Dawkins pursuant to his letter and Dawkins told us that we
needed to find new tenants. At Dawkins request and in the hopes of saving our
rental registration certificate, we served a notice of lease termination on both
tenants.
11
EXHIBIT 78
40. At Dawkins request, we signed a Certification of Rental Registration NonRevocation
Agreement, whereby we agreed with Dawkins to remove the
tenants from "both up and down" units by voluntary Notice to Quit or
Unlawful Detainer. See Exhibit No. 20.
41. This was the same meeting in which Dawkins told me, as he patted me on the
back, that "If we had more landlords like you in this city, we could clean this
place up."
42. As a direct result of the discriminatory and illegal code enforcement actions by
Defendants directed against us, we lost revenue and rental income and incurred
expenses to pay for permits, inspections, repairs and other expenses
43. Defendants' discriminatory and illegal code enforcement activity continues to
this day. Code enforcement officers prepared and mailed to us written
Correction Orders and Summary Abatement Orders on our rental properties
wherein they made petty, malicious and false statements about claimed code
violations; many of the entries in the written Correction Orders issued by the
code enforcement officers were false and calculated to make our properties
look bad.
44. Due to the volume of false and petty orders issued by Defendants, and due to
the behavior and items used by tenants which a landlord cannot control, we
attempted, but could not keep up with the City's requirements and therefore
incurred re-inspection fees and excessive consumption invoices.
45. As a direct result of the constant discrimination and illegal code enforcement
12
EXHIBIT 78
treatment and racketeering activity directed at us by said Defendants, all at the
direction or with the approval of Dawkins and Kelly, we were injured in our
rental business and incurred unnecessary expenses, fees and lost profits and we
were thereafter forced to sell at least one of our real estate investment
properties in the City. Other impacted rental property owners were forced to
sell properties as well.
46. Defendant Dawkins owns at least two properties in the City that have been
consistently in a state of disrepair and in serious violation of City Code.
Moreover, certain city inspectors own rental properties in the City and these
inspectors are recipients of preferential code enforcement treatment even
though their properties have multiple code violations.
47. Because of the shocking experience with City code enforcement methods
under Dawkins, the petty conduct by Dawkins and the inspectors, the large
amount of expenses I was forced to incur in a very small amount of time, the
losses of rental income I suffered, and the heightened code standards and
increased enforcement of those heightened code standards in the areas I owned
rental properties, and all the emotional stress this caused, we were forced to
sell or go into foreclosure on all of our single family and duplex rental
properties in the City in order to avoid financial disaster.
48. I incurred significant expenses from those sales transactions that I would have
not incurred but for the City's "forced sale" policy.
49. The city's heightened code standards and increased code enforcement against
13
EXHIBIT 78
me, my rental homes and tenants during 2002 through 2005, was a barrier to
my ability to provide affordable housing to my minority and low-income
tenants and to other "protected class" individuals that were seeking affordable
housing in the City during that time period.
50. I continued to receive calls from prospective tenants looking for affordable
housing in the City of Saint Paul during 2002 through 2005 and during the
period I was in the process of selling the last of my rental homes to save my
investments.
51. I also suffered increased tax burdens due .to quick sales, and I incurred
substantial expenses in unnecessary repairs, and through permit and code
compliance fees.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 8-22-2008
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 22nd day ofAn~
~
Notary Public
Under Seal
14
MATTHEW A ENGEL
NOrARY PUBLIC - MINNESC>'T.'
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1-31-2011

8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds like the city was after this one for behavior issues with his tenants and that brings to mind what Bill Cullen has been harping about for so long. The city says screen screen screen, but refuses to give any direction as to what will make them happy for you to screen out. You're supposed to guess or perform magic and then when it doesn't work out, they say you're the bad guy. It sounds like an impossible situation set up by the city with failure as a guaranteed result.

10:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its seems that eric had it wrong.

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow!

12:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's 2 things that really stand out to me when reading this. The city was definitely out to get this owner and they are using code enforcement to do the Police departments job.

12:06 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

The city continues to use code compliance on private owners even though Morris vs Sax prevents it. What in the world is going to stop these corrupt officials?

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ricomen will stop them.

4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WHere are you Eric? Here's your chance man, come on back and tell us what bad guys these evil landlords are.

9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a joke.

What is the illegal enforcement?

He says basicly for 6 years I was flipping properties doing fine and then all of the sudden the City said I had to actually keep up my property and I am not going to take that shit. As long as I am exploiting minority members they should be happy about it.

No winner here.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watch yourself Chuck-You're the slumlord ya asshole.Burned out cars, peeling paint,missing door knobs and screens.

9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Class C - properties that have minimal amenities for low income individuals,but are safe and decent affordable housing.
-----------
"safe"?
"decent"?
"minimal amenities"

Looking at those addresses, I don't think so.

This guy is a typical amateur property flipper who got pinched while holding on to some property.

He didn't buy and rent in those neighborhoods because the tenants needed a good white man to help them. He did it because it was profitable. Properties were already basement priced compared to the rest of the city and all one had to do was purchase one and do nothing. In a few month to a couple of years-presto! Nice profit. Dawkins started making them bring that old housing stock up to par and those who only investing short term were going to loose out.

Those are the breaks of the business.

9:52 PM  
Anonymous rodney said...

can't we all just get along?

10:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are you going to say Chuck when the trial happens and these landlords step up to the jury box with reciepts for thousands of dollars in repairs to these properties you say they refuse to fix?

11:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll say that is what all of us do in Saint Paul every day to take care of our property. My next door neighbor and I just spent $1,500. to cut down a bunch of old trees the guy on the other side spent a bunch on a new fence.

Your boys think they should get money back from the government because someone had to hold a gun to their heads to do what the rest of us do every damn day.

This guy bitches that having to fix his existing properties was interfering with his ability to buy more and rent more crap.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think they were fixing their properties long before the city's gang of criminals came along Chuck....although I'm not sure, but the dates on their reciepts should show if they were maintaining their property or not. Now if those reciepts show they didn't do anything until the city gang came along, then maybe you have a point. That's the nice thing about records, facts and dates, etc. Chuck.....the city gang has to stop talking with sound bytes and their little trick of prefacing everything they say with some slanderous remarks about the guy they're talking about isn't going to count for squat any more. Now everyone gets to stand by their facts and have some reasonable people decide. I don't think that decision is going to be in the city's favor.

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck I think Gutzman the head of PHA has stated that their waiting list are larger then ever before.I also notice the homeless shelters filling up and vacant buildings are also at an all time high.Your right Chuck affordable housing is just fine.

Folks Chuck has it all figured out,to bad he isn't running this city.




Tim Ciani

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim you are proving my point.

The arguement that your side makes is that the City is doing this to rid itself of the poor.

It appears to be not working...

DUH

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My point Chuck if you open your ears is list are growing and housing is shrinking.


Da De Dah


Tim Ciani

11:01 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Jeff & Sara, I know your family has suffered much turmoil over this issue. I pray often for all of you.

SOMEDAY, the sun will shine brightly in your lives again.

God Bless!

11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck a heartless bastard and only if he knew what this family has been through.Chuck go to hell and what goes around comes around.

8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I am one of the "heartless bastards" that gets the phone calls from the people who live next door to the hell holes that the "RICO MEN" run.

These people call me and beg, "why can't the City do anything to make them take care of their property?" "Why can't the City make them stop renting to drug dealers?" "Why can this guy who lives in White Bear Lake or Hopkins, or North Oaks be allowed to destroy my neighborhood?

They cry on the phone, "my property value has gone to nothing because of this jerk who never takes care of his property." "I'd sell but the only one who will buy is another one of these crooks."

Yup your right after hearing hundreds and hundreds of phone calls like that it is a little hard to have sympathy for some guy who is going to have to suffer with a bigger tax write off this year than last year on his rental properties.

On National Night Out I stopped by the block club near 15xx Case that Bob had posted on the list a while back ago. The one where the guy lied to the council about it being his only house and it was one of a dozen rentals he had. They were pretty thrilled to see that building gone and to be done with that jerk!

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about The rest of them? What is thier story? ? ? ?

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 9:09

Maybe they'll be just as thrilled to pay for the lawsuit from this guy.

1:07 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home